This narration is interpreted as pertaining to the context of taqiyyah (precautionary dissimulation). However, in a state of choice (when no dissimulation is required), it is not permissible except to wipe over the feet, as we have explained. If someone says: "What prevents you from considering that your reliance on the recitation with the genitive case (jar) in the verse [of ablution] does not necessarily mandate wiping but rather indicates a grammatical connection between the feet and the head without implying a shared ruling? This could be an example of adjacency (mujawarah), as found in many examples of Arabic speech. For instance, they say, 'Juhru dhabbin kharib' ('The burrow of a lizard, ruined'), where 'ruined' is a descriptor for the burrow, not the lizard, but it takes the genitive case due to adjacency. Similarly, the poet said: 'It is as if Buthayra on the tips of his rainclouds Is a great man wrapped in a garment.' Here, 'wrapped in a garment' describes the man, not the garment. And as Al-A‘sha said: 'Indeed, in the year of residence I stayed, Many desires were fulfilled, and others wearied.' In this example, 'wearied' is related to the fulfillment of desires, not the residence. According to this reasoning, it is not farfetched to suggest that the feet are to be washed, even though they are in the genitive case." We say to these argument; "This is invalid from several aspects. The first is that there is no disagreement among the experts of Arabic grammar that the rule of adjacency in declension (I'rab) does not extend beyond its immediate context. Something of this degree of irregularity and departure from established linguistic principles cannot be applied to the speech of Allah سبحانه وتعالى, the Exalted. The second is that every instance of declension by adjacency mentioned by the questioner, and even those not mentioned, lacks the conjunctive particle (Harf al-'Atf) that is present in the verse. It is on this basis that we maintain the equal ruling of the legs (Arjul) and the heads (Ru’us). If the ruling of adjacency cited were valid for analogical reasoning, the verse would not conform to it, as it contains the evidence of conjunction, which is absent in cases of declension by adjacency. There is no doubt for anyone who understands Arabic that adjacency has no effect when conjunction is present. The third is that declension by adjacency is only deemed appropriate where no ambiguity arises in meaning. Do you not see that there is no ambiguity in ‘Kharab’ being an attribute of the lizard, and it is clearly understood as one of the characteristics of its burrow? Similarly, the statement ‘Muzzammil’ is evidently an attribute of the elder, not of the coarse garment (Bijaad). This is not the case with the verse, as the ruling regarding the legs could reasonably imply wiping, just as it could imply washing. The matter is therefore ambiguous and not free from doubt, so adjacency cannot be applied due to the resulting confusion and ambiguity. Moreover, it falls outside the domain of instances where adjacency has been customarily employed by the speakers of Arabic. As for the verse recited from Al-A’sha’s poem, those who claimed adjacency here are mistaken in their assumption. Instead, 'Thawa’ was declined in the genitive case (Jar) as a substitute (Badal) for ‘Hawl.’ The meaning is, ‘There was in the duration of your stay fulfillment of desires.’ This category of substitution is called 'substitution of inclusion' (Badal Ishtimal), as in the verse of Allah سبحانه وتعالى: (Cursed were the companions of the trench - the fire full of fuel) and His saying: (They ask you concerning the sacred month - fighting therein). If it is said, 'How do you claim that adjacency has no effect when conjunction is present, given the verse of Allah سبحانه وتعالى: (There will circulate among them immortal boys with goblets, jugs, and a cup of flowing wine, and wide-eyed maidens), where the latter is in the genitive case due to adjacency, as they serve the drink rather than being served?' Similarly, the poet says: Nothing remains but a captive, unrestrained, And one bound in the fetters of captivity, shackled. Here, 'bound' is in the genitive case due to adjacency with ‘unrestrained,’ while it should have been in the nominative case, as the meaning implies, ‘Nothing remains but a captive and one bound.’ To this, we respond that the assumption regarding adjacency in these instances is incorrect. Instead, each case can be explained by other valid grammatical principles that do not contradict established linguistic norms." We said: The first thing that invalidates this statement is that not all the Qur'an reciters agree on the genitive case (Jar) for "Hur ʿIn" (wide-eyed maidens). In fact, the majority of the Seven Reciters opt for the nominative case (Rafʿ), including Nafiʿ, Ibn Kathir, Asim (in one narration), Abu Amr, and Ibn Amir. Those who recite it in the genitive case include Hamzah and al-Kisaʾi, along with a narration from al-Mufaddal on the authority of Asim. It has also been reported that some recited it in the accusative case (Nasb) as "Wa Huran ʿInan." As for the genitive reading, it has an interpretation other than adjacency. This is because the preceding verse states: (Those are the ones brought near, in Gardens of Bliss), and "Hur ʿIn" is connected to "Gardens of Bliss" by conjunction (Atf). It is as though the verse means: "They are in Gardens of Bliss and in the company of, or in the companionship of, wide-eyed maidens." The omitted construct (Mudaf) makes this interpretation plausible. This explanation is a sound interpretation mentioned by Abu Ali al-Farisi in his book "Al-Hujjah fi al-Qiraʾat." As for the verse from poetry cited by the questioner, it is contrary to what he assumes. The meaning of the verse, "Nothing remains but a captive", implies, "Nothing remains other than a captive and nothing remains unrestrained." Then "and one bound" is declined in the genitive case (Jar) by conjunction to the meaning and position of "a captive". It is as though the poet said: "Nothing remains other than a captive, nor anything unrestrained, nor anything other than one bound." As for the poet’s verse: "So, will you, if your she-donkey dies, set out to the family of Bastam ibn Qays, the orator?" The nominative case (Rafʿ) for "the orator" can be valid, and the genitive case reported by the narrator is due to an error. If in the nominative case, it would be conjuncted to "set out". Alternatively, "the orator" could be an imperative verb (Fiʿl Amr) in the meaning of an address, and the genitive case could have been applied loosely due to poetic license. If it is said: How do you refute the interpretation that the verse obligates wiping (Mash) of the feet, and that this wiping could imply a light washing (Ghusl)? This is because among the Arabs, "Mash" sometimes refers to a light washing. This has been reported from Abu Zayd al-Ansari, who cited as evidence the expression, "I wiped for prayer", meaning they used washing lightly and called it wiping. On this basis, the commentators have interpreted Allah’s سبحانه وتعالى statement: (And he began wiping their legs and necks) to mean that he washed their legs and necks. We said: This claim is invalid for several reasons: Among them is that the linguistic possibility of a word’s meaning is irrelevant when, in the terminology of Islamic law (Shariah), the term is specifically associated with a single, distinct implication. Thus, even if we concede that "washing" (Ghusl) is referred to as "wiping" (Mash) in the language, it would not undermine our interpretation of the verse. This is because, in the Shariah, the term "wiping" conveys a meaning distinct from "washing." Accordingly, the scholars of Shariah have designated certain body parts in purification to be wiped and others to be washed, differentiating between the two rulings. They distinguish, for example, between someone who says, "So-and-so believes the obligation for the feet is wiping," and someone who says, "So-and-so believes it is washing." Another reason is that if the heads are wiped with the type of wiping that is not considered washing - and there is no disagreement on this - and the feet are conjoined with the heads (in the verse), then it is obligatory for the ruling of the feet to be like that of the heads in terms of wiping and its manner. Differentiating between them in the manner of wiping while they are conjoined is akin to differentiating between them regarding wiping itself. Another reason is that if wiping were considered washing and washing were considered wiping, then the basis of what our opponents rely upon would collapse. This is because they often cite their narration that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وسلم performed ablution and washed his feet. If it were not objectionable for the washing mentioned in the narration to be understood as wiping, then their interpretation of the verse would invalidate the very foundation of their opinion regarding the washing of the feet. Another reason is that the argument of those linguists who equate wiping with washing is based on the inclusion of wiping within the act of washing. However, not everything that includes another thing can be named after that thing. For example, we know that washing includes acts such as applying pressure and movement, but it cannot be called by the names of those individual actions it includes. As for Abu Zayd’s evidence in the statement, "I wiped for prayer", the meaning here is that they wanted to describe the purification (Taharah) with concise wording. They could not say, "I washed for prayer," because purification includes actions that are not washing. Nor could they say, "I washed and wiped for prayer," as that would be overly lengthy. So they instead said, "I wiped," because the washed parts of the body are also wiped. This was a figurative expression for conciseness or relying on the understood meaning. This does not imply that they considered wiping to be one of the names for washing. As for the verse, the majority of exegetes have not interpreted it as suggested in the question. Abu ʿUbaydah, al-Farraʾ, and others said that the meaning of "He began wiping" is "striking." Others said it refers to actual wiping, meaning he wiped the manes and legs of the animals. A minority said it refers to washing. Those who said so do not deny that interpreting wiping as washing is figurative and metaphorical. However, it is impermissible for us to deviate in the speech of Allah سبحانه وتعالى, the Exalted, from the literal meaning to the metaphorical meaning except when there is necessity. If it is said: What prevents you from accepting that the recitation in the genitive case (Jar) implies wiping, but that it refers to wiping over the footwear (Khuffayn), not the bare feet (Rijlayn)? Whereas the recitation in the accusative case (Nasb) necessitates washing, which applies specifically to the bare feet, thereby allowing the verse in both recitations to accommodate both rulings? We say: Footwear (Khuff) is neither called "feet" (Arjul) in language nor in Islamic law (Shariah), just as a turban is not called "head" (Raʾs), nor is a veil (Burquʿ) called "face" (Wajh). If it were permissible to interpret the term "feet" in the verse to mean "footwear," it would likewise be permissible to interpret all the other terms we mentioned in the same manner. If it is said: What about the recitation in the accusative case (Nasb), which is the majority reading among the reciters? It necessitates washing and does not imply anything else. We say: The first point to address here is that the recitation in the genitive case (Jar) is agreed upon, whereas the recitation in the accusative case (Nasb) is disputed. We argue that the recitation in the accusative case is not valid, and the divinely revealed recitation is the one in the genitive case. This is supported by the following evidence:
Commentary #19